Hands-on: fat-free Xfce 4.6 has nice new features

Ars takes a test drive with Xfce 4.6, the latest version of the popular …

GNOME and KDE reign supreme on the Linux desktop, but there are many lesser-known desktop environments that are increasingly popular among users who are looking for lightweight alternatives that deliver more streamlined interfaces and a functional user experience with less overhead. The Xfce project, which produces one of the most polished lightweight desktop environments, recently announced the release of version 4.6.

Xfce is widely used on legacy hardware and systems that lack the resources to run more comprehensive environments. It has also recently gained a large following on Linux-based netbook devices where its fast start-time and slim profile are highly valued. Xfce is also a favorite among Linux users who prefer simpler and less intrusive software. It requires few dependencies and is built with the GTK+ toolkit. It is often praised for its high modularity, a characteristic that reflects a strong affinity with the component-oriented UNIX philosophy.

The new version of Xfce brings some significant improvements, including rich support for session management and several new configuration utilities. These enhancements demonstrate that Xfce can provide the most important accoutrements of a modern desktop environment without compromising its low-fat design goals. I tested Xfce 4.6 on openSUSE 11.1 with the new packages from the build service. For details about how to install the packages on openSUSE, check out the blog entry by package maintainer Pavol Rusnak. So far, it seems to be working pretty well and I haven't run into any problems with it.

The improved session manager makes it possible for core components of the environment, such as the panel and the file manager, to automatically restart in the event of a crash. The session management preference dialog has also been improved to provide users with greater control. This release also introduces official support for suspend and hibernate—features that are particularly important on netbook devices.

Xfce's window manager, which is called Xfwm, is moderately customizable and has advanced features like shading and edge snapping. It also has its own robust compositing engine which is used to support window transparency and shadows (it's worth noting that Xfwm can do compositing quite well without hardware-accelerated graphics and proprietary drivers. It even works in VirtualBox). In the 4.6 release, the compositing feature has been leveraged to reduce flickering. The window manager also gained support for allowing users to easily terminate unresponsive windows.

The environment's current file manager, which is called Thunar, was first introduced in the 4.4 release to replace the aging Xffm (nobody agrees with me, but I still think that Xffm's slightly convoluted dual-tree interface is pure awesomeness). Thunar uses less memory than other file managers and has a clean and simple user interface. In the new version, Thunar has gained support for encrypted devices, the XDG user directory specification, and drive mounting. The desktop manager also has improved support for icon selection and has added the ability to use a lasso to select multiple icons at once.

Other important enhancements in this release are a new GStreamer-based volume control mixer, an application finder, and better panel plugins. For more information about the new features, check out the project's official release notes and screenshot tour.

I've loved Xfce from the moment I first installed Linux (though I don't miss xffm at all And I don't just use it on my old, slow, crappy hardware but on my fastest quad core machines as well. It's the perfect desktop. Fast, intuitive and good looking.

I have tried using XFCE several times in the past. What I don't get is the whole "light" part. Basically, XFCE 4 is linked to GTK2, same as GNOME. In order to get all the nice features it needs GConf, HAL and D-BUS, same as GNOME. So where exactly is it light?

I've always liked Xfce much more than the now bloaty Gnome and KDE, especially the Next style and Glossy theme, which allows for thin, single pixel wide window borders. Thunar is nice as well, however, the file monitor, gam tends to use more and more CPU power as time goes on, so you basically have to kill it if you want to conserve CPU power.

Awesome, I've been using XFCE on an old Dell P4 1.5Ghz with 1 GB of RAM for a few years now. Xubuntu has always felt snappy to me(compared to stock Ubuntu) while still having many features that are eschewed by some of the other "slim" window managers. I used to have Ubuntu 6.06 on the machine back when it had 256 MB of RAM, but when I switched to using XFCE my experience improved dramatically. Granted, some people do not want those features, but that is the great thing about linux, choice. Anyway, looks like Xubuntu 9.04 will have it.

@wombat: That is true, which is what makes it less light than blackbox, WindowMaker, etc. However, it gives many of the features of the big boys like GNOME while still having a smaller footprint. While the GTK2 backend adds some bloat, the replacements for Metacity and Nautilus make up for it.

Originally posted by wombat:I have tried using XFCE several times in the past. What I don't get is the whole "light" part.

Perhaps you haven't tried XFCE on older machines with under 512 MB of ram. On those sorts of machines, Gnome can be terribly, horribly slow. On those same machines, XFCE flies.

I've tried a number of lightweight distros, of those XFCE is my preferred desktop. Most of the lite distos remove too much functionality for my liking. That said, XFCE suffers from some severe reductions in functionality when compared to Gnome or KDE. The most egregious of these is the lack of search in Thunar. In fact, the last XFCE distro I installed, Xubuntu, shipped with absolutely NO file search capability of any kind.

Yes, I know there are ways to install file search utilities, but come on. No built in file search? What is this, 1994?

I've also found that Xubuntu seems to be the neglected step-child of Ubuntu. Often rushed out the door to meet with the Ubuntu release deadline, missing features that it is documented to contain.

Still, Xubuntu has a lot going for it. It's completely free and runs very well on older machines. It has robust support for all kinds of peripherals, even wi-fi cards. For basic web browsing, e-mail and word processing it's more than adequate. All that said, Windows 2000 runs just as well on those older machines, and it has things like fully integrated file search.

Well, GNOME makes KDE 4.3 Beta look overly bloated. Yet, there are some things that KDE just flat out does better.

I can't get compiz running for whatever reason in Gnome, but it works with no effort already in KDE4. It says it is activated, but then nothing happens.

But, it doesn't matter. I can chose to login with KDE4.3, 3.7, Gnome, XfCE, WindowMaker anytime I want. Ain't choice great for some things?

Btw, using OpenSuSE, who makes it easy to switch btw them all. Of course others can too, but last time I checked there was still KUbuntu and Ubuntu and I guess XUbuntu. Can't they just combine them all into a DVD like SuSE?

Nice to see the light-weight Linux stuff get some love. I've been a big fan of Xubuntu ever since it resurrected my old desktop. With only a few exceptions, it has been a fantastic experience. I also see that Linux Mint just released an XfCE version of Mint 6 "Felicia," which is good news.

yakumoXFCE is interesting until you need some app that pulls in all the Gnome dependencies and thus making it useless.

wombatI have tried using XFCE several times in the past. What I don't get is the whole "light" part. Basically, XFCE 4 is linked to GTK2, same as GNOME. In order to get all the nice features it needs GConf, HAL and D-BUS, same as GNOME. So where exactly is it light?

I found all the gnome libs pulled in as well when I wanted certain apps. Wasn't worth it for me. Especially with memory so cheap.

Originally posted by Morhyn:Did I miss the review? This reads more like an overview of the changelog.

Seconded. There is no "test-drive" here, and the only analysis that takes place at all is 'It is often praised for its high modularity, a characteristic that reflects a strong affinity with the component-oriented UNIX philosophy,' a direct reference to the text on the xfce front page, 'Xfce 4.6 embodies the traditional UNIX philosophy of modularity and re-usability.'

Just because Xfce is doesn't come on the default Ubuntu installation doesn't mean it should be relegated to charity "reviews;" in fact, such tools in particular should receive more scrutiny so people can tell whether or not they're worth using.

Originally posted by sprockkets:Of course others can too, but last time I checked there was still KUbuntu and Ubuntu and I guess XUbuntu. Can't they just combine them all into a DVD like SuSE?

The point of it is that it fits on a CD, the only difference between the three is the desktop environment. It's dead simple to install another one once you're up and running as well. Makes for a much smaller initial download.

I use Zenwalk, which is based on Xfce and Slackware, on a 128MB computer. It loads faster, and is more responsive than XP on a 1GB machine. I cannot praise it highly enough and will definitely be using it on my next machine (Netbook based on ion, as soon as they become available over here).

Well, to be fair, the article never claims to be a review, but yeah, it was a little light, like XFCE :-P

I've been a fan of XFCE since I first discovered it a good while back, even though I'm primarily a Mac user. Every time I install Ubuntu, I make sure XFCE is in there, too. It is very Mac-like in some ways. I know I'll have XFCE installed when I get a netbook.

@Loudergood. Yes, but SuSE has BOTH KDE and Gnome on one CD, and sees no need to split them by name.

It's the difference between CD and DVD. Ubuntu comes on a CD and gives you a minimal environment. Everything else can be installed from the internet. With SuSE, you get a DVD with most of the repository contents.

Yes, Zenwalk is very nice and reasonably fast on low end hardware. But how much is because of Xfce, and how much because of the slackware base? If you try minimalist desktops on Mandriva, as an example, on old hardware, they still are very slow. I suspect its speed may be more due to the base system than the WM.

Not knocking Xfce - its a very nice, clean, understated, classic sort of look. And it is certainly faster than KDE.

Anyway, I don't mind Xfce, but, like other commenters, I don't see what the big deal is with it. It's fairly light on it's own, but any other software you install will pull in a bunch of dependencies for gnome or KDE on its own. That, and KDE4.2 really doesn't have a large memory footprint (I boot up and log in to find under 200MB consumed on my openSUSE 11.1/KDE 4.3 machine).